posted at 10:41 am on November 20, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

National Journal’s polling has shown more stability in American assessments of the Affordable Care Act than most other pollsters, especially CBS and the Washington Post/ABC polls. Their latest survey follows the same pattern, with responses on support largely remaining constant. That’s not necessarily a good thing, though, as Ronald Brownstein warns his readers, because only a third expect to benefit from what is essentially a redistributive system at their expense:

These results reflect a broad consensus. In the new survey, solid majorities of Democrats, independents, nonwhites, and both college-educated and noncollege whites say the law will help the uninsured; majorities of each of those groups except whites without college degrees also say it will help the poor (and even a 49 percent plurality of those noncollege whites agree). Republicans were more dubious, but even so, 47 percent thought the law would help the uninsured and 42 percent believed it would benefit the poor.

These results are a mixed blessing for the law’s supporters, though, because the poll also finds that most Americans, especially whites, are much more dubious that the law will benefit broader groups in the country, or their own families. That confounds the anticipation of Democratic strategists who have hoped for decades that health care reform could reverse the skepticism among many voters, particularly middle-class whites, that Washington can deliver tangible benefits in their own lives.

Relatively few voters, especially whites, are anticipating such benefits from the health care law, the poll found. Overall, just 33 percent said they expected the law will make things better for “people like you and your family,” while 49 percent said they thought it would make things worse. That was little changed since July (when those polled split 35 percent positive to 46 percent negative). But the results continued the decline since September 2012, just before Obama’s reelection, when a narrow 43 percent to 40 percent plurality expected the law to improve their personal health care.

A majority expects to see the middle class get hammered by ObamaCare:

The survey also produced adverse judgments on what the law will mean for other groups. Just 39 percent said the law will benefit the middle class, while 53 percent said it would harm it. That was also down significantly since September 2012, but essentially unchanged since last July when respondents split 36 percent positive to 49 percent negative.

Brownstein concludes that the law hasn’t yet seen a “collapse of public support,” but that’s becoming an outlier position in polling. Nor will that improve over the next few weeks, as Thomas Edsall writes at the New York Times, in large part because of the blatantly redistributive nature of ObamaCare. He titled his piece “The ObamaCare Crisis,” but he actually describes a series of crises that are building for the White House:

The seven million people officials initially estimated would sign up for the Obamacare insurance exchanges this year are putting their well-being and that of their families in the hands of government bureaucracies armed with demonstrably inadequate technological expertise.

The chaos surrounding efforts to activate HealthCare.gov reinforces a key conservative meme: that whatever the test is, government will fail it. Insofar as voters experience their interaction with government as frustrating and unreliable, the brunt of political damage will hit Democrats, both as the party of government and as the party of Obamacare.

Cumulatively, recent developments surrounding the rollout of Obamacare strengthen the most damaging conservative portrayals of liberalism and of big government – that on one hand government is too much a part of our lives, too invasive, too big, too scary, too regulatory, too in your face, and on the other hand it is incompetent, bureaucratic and expropriatory.

In addition, the Affordable Care Act can be construed as a transfer of benefits from Medicare, which serves an overwhelmingly white population of the elderly – 77 percent of recipients are white — to Obamacare, which will serve a population that is 54.7 percent minority. Over 10 years, the Affordable Care Act cuts $455 billion from the Medicare budget in order to help pay for Obamacare.

Those who think that a critical mass of white voters has moved past its resistance to programs shifting tax dollars and other resources from the middle class to poorer minorities merely need to look at the election of 2010, which demonstrated how readily this resistance can be used politically. The passage of the A.C.A. that year forced such issues to the fore, and Republicans swept the House and state houses across the country. The program’s current difficulties have the clear potential to replay events of 2010 in 2014 and possibly 2016.

It’s not just the web portal failure that plays into this issue, either. It’s the skyrocketing premiums, the disruption of millions of cancellations, and the long string of lies that sold this monstrosity that are creating crises of credibility as well as competency. Barack Obama and the Democrats took a system with a reasonable amount of stability and certainty for the 85% who had insurance coverage and have seriously destabilized it, at least in the short term — and for little benefit to those who have to suffer the disruptions.

However, Edsall misses the clearest form of redistribution and why that matters for Democrats:

Technology aside, the stakes could not be higher for the Democratic Party.

The Affordable Care Act “is often compared to Social Security and Medicare but these comparisons are imprecise and misleading,” as Edward Carmines, a political scientist at Indiana University, put it in an email: “The distinctive feature of the new health care law is its redistributive nature, which is mostly absent from Social Security and Medicare.”

Carmines went on, succinctly analyzing the political problem lying at the heart of Obamacare:

“Most of the benefits of the new program will go to the poor and less-well-off and most of the costs will be born by the well off. Neither is true of Medicare or Social Security. When the new law was passed it was hailed by the New York Times as the most redistributive policy in a generation, and they were right. It was not sold as being markedly redistributive, of course, but that is how it was designed and will operate. This does not mean it is a bad policy or doomed to fail. But it does mean that it was bound to be caught up in controversy and heated debate.”

That’s not accurate, actually. The big push is to get younger, healthier, and on average much less affluent consumers to pay exorbitant premiums in order to keep costs down for older, sicker, and on average more affluent consumers – in part to make this politically palatable for more reliable voting demographics. It’s a redistribution, all right, but from the younger generation to the older generation, one of the least progressive redistributions imaginable. Insurers demanded that these younger and less wealthy consumers get forced into comprehensive policies and premiums, and the system then partially subsidizes those costs but leaves them exposed to large deductibles so that insurers will pay out almost no benefits to this class of consumer. When younger voters realize the scam, they won’t be inclined to turn out for those who crafted that redistribution. That’s a crisis that may last for decades in the Democratic Party.

Insurers demanded that these younger and less wealthy consumers get forced into comprehensive policies and premiums, and the system then partially subsidizes those costs but leaves them exposed to large deductibles so that insurers will pay out almost no benefits to this class of consumer.

Some drivers along a busy Fort Worth street on Friday were stopped at a police roadblock and directed into a parking lot, where they were asked by federal contractors for samples of their breath, saliva and even blood.

It was part of a government research study aimed at determining the number of drunken or drug-impaired drivers.

“It just doesn’t seem right that you can be forced off the road when you’re not doing anything wrong,” said Kim Cope, who said she was on her lunch break when she was forced to pull over at the roadblock on Beach Street in North Fort Worth.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which is spending $7.9 million on the survey over three years, said participation was “100 percent voluntary” and anonymous.

But Cope said it didn’t feel voluntary to her — despite signs saying it was.

“I gestured to the guy in front that I just wanted to go straight, but he wouldn’t let me and forced me into a parking spot,” she said.

Once parked, she couldn’t believe what she was asked next.

“They were asking for cheek swabs,” she said. “They would give $10 for that. Also, if you let them take your blood, they would pay you $50 for that.”

At the very least, she said, they wanted to test her breath for alcohol.

She said she felt trapped.

“I finally did the Breathalyzer test just because I thought that would be the easiest way to leave,” she said, adding she received no money.

Fort Worth police earlier said they could not immediately find any record of officer involvement but police spokesman Sgt. Kelly Peel said Tuesday that the department’s Traffic Division coordinated with the NHTSA on the use of off-duty officers after the agency asked for help with the survey.

“We are reviewing the actions of all police personnel involved to ensure that FWPD policies and procedures were followed,” he said. “We apologize if any of our drivers and citizens were offended or inconvenienced by the NHTSA National Roadside Survey.”

NBC DFW confirmed that the survey was done by a government contractor, the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, which is based in Calverton, Md.

A company spokeswoman referred questions to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

An agency spokeswoman sent an email confirming the government is conducting the surveys in 30 cities across the country in an effort to reduce impaired-driving accidents.

She did not respond to another email from NBC DFW asking specific questions about the program..

But a Fort Worth attorney who is an expert in civil liberties law questioned whether such stops are constitutional.

“You can’t just be pulled over randomly or for no reason,” said attorney Frank Colosi.

He also noted the fine print on a form given to drivers informs them their breath was tested by “passive alcohol sensor readings before the consent process has been completed.”

“They’re essentially lying to you when they say it’s completely voluntary, because they’re testing you at that moment,” Colosi said….”

“Most of the benefits of the new program will go to the poor and less-well-off and most of the costs will be born by the well off. Neither is true of Medicare or Social Security. When the new law was passed it was hailed by the New York Times as the most redistributive policy in a generation, and they were right. It was not sold as being markedly redistributive, of course, but that is how it was designed and will operate. This does not mean it is a bad policy or doomed to fail. But it does mean that it was bound to be caught up in controversy and heated debate.”

obama and the Ds are the biggest frauds of the land.

All who voted for it out in 2014.

Move the senate to the Rs and hold the RINO’s tails to account. The fraudsters in DC will destroy you otherwise, from both sides.

We are not looking at skyrocketing insurance premiums and deductibles the right way. We should be looking at them as a TAX INCREASE.

Imagine if the progressives had tried to pass an enormous new income tax, to find money to buy people with preexisting conditions health insurance, or to expand Medicaid, or to help buy their favored base insurance, etc. That would have been a non-starter even in a Democratic congress.

Instead they invented Obamacare, which captures the health insurance companies and uses them as tax collectors and direct redistributors of wealth via ‘insurance’ premiums. Obamacare also includes sixteen or so new stealth taxes.

In predictable fashion the Democratics made the subsidies dependent on income, ie ‘progressive’.

Barack Obama and the Democrats took a system with a reasonable amount of stability and certainty for the 85% who had insurance coverage and have seriously destabilized it, at least in the short term — and for little benefit to those who have to suffer the disruptions.

Voters seem to approve of redistribution when they get the idea that they will be the ones to whom other peoples’ stuff is going to be redistributed. Apparently, they become less enthusiastic when their own stuff starts getting redistributed.

Maybe it’s time for another Joe Biden speech about stepping up and being “patriotic,” and paying a whole lot more for your goods and services so other people will be able to pay a whole lot less for theirs.

I have said all along that the purpose of the bill goes beyond simple redistribution. It is designed to cap incomes. A prime exampe is shown by the situation that former Obamacare supporter Jessica Sanford find herself in. She makes too much money for the subsidy and connot afford health insurance. It is perfectly rational for her to reduce her income to qualify so she can afford the insurance. Unless you can leapfrog over the loss of subsidies your income will be capped at about $45k for the singles and $62k for marrieds. For a married couple it will take about $75k to equal the income of someone at the subsidy limit just to break even.

This is all about 20% on Welfare, 75% working poor and lower middle class all ruled over by a kleptocracy of 5%

Maybe it’s time for another Joe Biden speech about stepping up and being “patriotic,” and paying a whole lot more for your goods and services so other people will be able to pay a whole lot less for theirs.

morganfrost on November 20, 2013 at 10:58 AM

The rat-eared coward likes to change the words of America’s greatest speeches (his are not among them). So in light of the bastard’s visit today to the JFK gravesite, perhaps it is time for a fireside chat and the thought to young people:

Ask not what I can do for you, but what you can do for me.

Because Obama needs young stupid people to step up and pay more than they should for healthcare to keep his parasitic supporters happy.

the Affordable Care Act can be construed as a transfer of benefits from Medicare, which serves an overwhelmingly white population of the elderly – 77 percent of recipients are white — to Obamacare, which will serve a population that is 54.7 percent minority. Over 10 years, the Affordable Care Act cuts $455 billion from the Medicare budget in order to help pay for Obamacare.

I have said all along that the purpose of the bill goes beyond simple redistribution. It is designed to cap incomes. A prime exampe is shown by the situation that former Obamacare supporter Jessica Sanford find herself in. She makes too much money for the subsidy and connot afford health insurance. It is perfectly rational for her to reduce her income to qualify so she can afford the insurance. Unless you can leapfrog over the loss of subsidies your income will be capped at about $45k for the singles and $62k for marrieds. For a married couple it will take about $75k to equal the income of someone at the subsidy limit just to break even.

This is all about 20% on Welfare, 75% working poor and lower middle class all ruled over by a kleptocracy of 5%

jerryofva on November 20, 2013 at 11:02 AM

Because the Obamacare subsidies hit hard and suddenly, meaning no gentle rolloff, it really can make sense in some cases for you to beg your employer to reduce your salary.

Obamacare also introduces a marriage penalty via subsidies. An unmarried couple can qualify for more subsidies while making more income than a married couple. From the socialists in DC, this should come as no surprise.

Young people almost always start out liberal and vote Democrat because they’ve been raised with mom and dad financially supporting them, and everything appears to be “free”. When they get older, they become conservative and vote Republican because they realize the money for all of this “free” stuff is coming out of their pocket.

Of course it was meant to redistribute wealth just like any socialist idea… It is a huge political disaster for the democrat and a disaster for the country…

From political point of view, the super vast majority of the winners in Obamacare are those who will enrolled in the Medicaid expansion and the super vast majority of them have always voted democrat so no real political gain for the democrats in this case…

On the other hand among the millions of people who are already hurt by Obamacare and the tens of millions who will be hurt in the coming months, their a large number of them who are democrats and many of them will be very angry at Obama, Obamacare, in addition the super vast majority of independents who are hurt by Obamacare are going to hate the democratic party guts… Of course all Republicans will do…

Zerocare does not help the poor. My son’s girlfriend is a convenience store cashier who makes $12T a year. She had fairly good insurance this year although with a high deductible. Next year the cost went up and the deductible. Oh, and she got the letter from her doctor to find another one. Tell me again how this helps the poor. Maybe some people shouldn’t believe everything they hear from the govt.

Medicaid expansion may not be a big benefit. You have to find a doctor who takes it. Remember Health Insurance is not equal to Medical care. Some of these Medicaid enrollees already had some form of health insurance. They will face reduced care options just like the middle class.

It’s a redistribution, all right, but from the younger generation to the older generation, one of the least progressive redistributions imaginable. Insurers demanded that these younger and less wealthy consumers get forced into comprehensive policies and premiums, and the system then partially subsidizes those costs but leaves them exposed to large deductibles so that insurers will pay out almost no benefits to this class of consumer. When younger voters realize the scam, they won’t be inclined to turn out for those who crafted that redistribution. That’s a crisis that may last for decades in the Democratic Party.

This is why repeal of the EpicClusterFarkNado is the only viable option. Obamacare is fundamentally flawed because it is entirely based on ignoring the laws of economics and the laws of human nature. It is as fundamentally flawed as every single other massive centralized government planning / control effort for markets or an entire national economy. It’s also the living embodiment of Einstein’s definition of insanity – doing the same thing as others did, with disastrous economic results, but expecting in the case of this Administration and its sycophants, economic success, ‘fairness’, and ‘social justice’.

As each of the shoes drop on this EpicClusterFarkNado, the American people are seeing that this does absolutely nothing towards ‘fixing’ the challenges we are facing within our healthcare industry – and that it is nothing more than a government seizure of 1/6th of the national economy which utterly fails to enact ‘fairness’ and ‘social justice’. They will see it is little more than a fraud – and Barack Obama is little more than another Bernie Madoff plus a bunch of zeros.

The really next big crisis for this White House and Democrats? No, not more cancellations, no, not losing your doctor, no, not sticker shock (if the website ever gets fixed).

No, the next big crisis is all those people with no insurance, because it was cancelled, trying to get cancer treatment, operations and prescriptions and being told just go home to die and this clip played over and over again:

As you know it never was about helping anyone but the government. Taking over a 1/6 of our economy be destroying private sector health care with the eventual goal of government managed single payer plan.

When younger voters realize the scam, they won’t be inclined to turn out for those who crafted that redistribution. That’s a crisis that may last for decades in the Democratic Party.

Thus is discovered the task for Ministry of Propaganda, aka “The MSM” in the next several elections:

1. Don’t report on who supported the law.
2. Blame those who didn’t support it as being responsible for its failure.
3. Never associate a Democrat with ObamaCare; when discussing a conservative, always make ObamaCare a point.

This process will plant in the young voters mind that only conservatives are associated with ObamaCare and therefore, must be responsible for it.

Mona Charen at National Review also had an excellent piece yesterday which picks up on this theme.

Charen writes that the big political failure of Obamacare is not that it is redistributive, but that Democrats who wrote it and passed it were unable to hide or delay the costs because political circumstances forced them to make it defcit-neutral. (Charen says credit for this should go to the Tea Party, which made more debt and tax increases toxic by the fall of 2009.) The difference between this and the other great entitlement programs is that the Democrats were unable to fund it through either direct taxes that everyone would pay, or general revenues that would mostly be borrowed.

Therefore, there was going to be a sizable number of losers in this program who would bear the costs of it immediately. The architects of Obamacare knew this, but they banked on the risky propositions that the website would work, their outreach programs would be effective, and the media would focus on the millions of people getting insurance for the first time and not those who were bearing the immediate costs.

Working class doesn’t realize the poor live better than them. People are so insulated that they think the poor still deserve more.

Mormontheman on November 20, 2013 at 11:21 AM

Actually the working class does understand this. That is why more and more of them are voting conservative, to the consternation of Democrats. Obamacare was supposed to reverse this, by providing benefits directly to working lower-middle-class people to show them how goverment could help them and not just the nonworking poor. It’s blowing up in their faces.

Working class doesn’t realize the poor live better than them. People are so insulated that they think the poor still deserve more.

Mormontheman on November 20, 2013 at 11:21 AM

Actually the working class does understand this. That is why more and more of them are voting conservative, to the consternation of Democrats. Obamacare was supposed to reverse this, by providing benefits directly to working lower-middle-class people to show them how goverment could help them and not just the nonworking poor. It’s blowing up in their faces.

rockmom on November 20, 2013 at 12:49 PM

Yes. Democratics are becoming the party of the grifters, illegal aliens, and the proggie elites.

It’s a redistribution, all right, but from the younger generation to the older generation, one of the least progressive redistributions imaginable. Insurers demanded that these younger and less wealthy consumers get forced into comprehensive policies and premiums, and the system then partially subsidizes those costs but leaves them exposed to large deductibles so that insurers will pay out almost no benefits to this class of consumer. When younger voters realize the scam, they won’t be inclined to turn out for those who crafted that redistribution. That’s a crisis that may last for decades in the Democratic Party.

This is why repeal of the EpicClusterFarkNado is the only viable option. Obamacare is fundamentally flawed because it is entirely based on ignoring the laws of economics and the laws of human nature. It is as fundamentally flawed as every single other massive centralized government planning / control effort for markets or an entire national economy. It’s also the living embodiment of Einstein’s definition of insanity – doing the same thing as others did, with disastrous economic results, but expecting in the case of this Administration and its sycophants, economic success, ‘fairness’, and ‘social justice’.

As each of the shoes drop on this EpicClusterFarkNado, the American people are seeing that this does absolutely nothing towards ‘fixing’ the challenges we are facing within our healthcare industry – and that it is nothing more than a government seizure of 1/6th of the national economy which utterly fails to enact ‘fairness’ and ‘social justice’. They will see it is little more than a fraud – and Barack Obama is little more than another Bernie Madoff plus a bunch of zeros.

Athos on November 20, 2013 at 11:58 AM

Anyone that bothered to read the first hundred pages of the law would realize this. It screws every young person in the country. No democrats and no one in the MSM read the bill.

It can’t be fixed.

It must be repealed.

It does not reduce the number of uninsured, it increases it by forces the premiums up for almost everyone.

Why would a college student whose plans are to be successful want redistribution? Obamacare has been the best educational tool we could have ever hoped for because it’s reality vs. the theoretical crap that’s being taught in the universities. Welcome to the real world of socialism.